Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Coridon S. Thompson, Assignee, Etc., Respondent, v. George A. Sweet et al., Appellants, 1878 — 73 N.Y. 622 · caselaw · US
Administrative
Coridon S. Thompson, Assignee, Etc., Respondent, v. George A. Sweet et al., Appellants
73 N.Y. 622·New York Court of Appeals·1878·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Coridon S. Thompson, Assignee, Etc., Respondent, v. George A. Sweet et al., Appellants.
Where a sheriff retains and uses moneys in his hands during the pendency of an action to determine conflicting claims thereto, in disobedience of an order of court, entered upon stipulation of the parties directing a deposit thereof, he is properly chargeable with interest thereon.
(Argued April 24, 1878;
decided May 21, 1878.)
This was an action by plaintiff as assignee in bankruptcy of Philo W. Porter to set aside a judgment in favor of defendant Brown against the bankrupt, on the ground that it was obtained collusively and in fraud of creditors ; also to reach the avails of property of the bankrupt in the hands of defendant Sweet, which property was sold by said defendant as sheriff upon execution issued upon said judgment.
The principal questions were disposed of on the facts. An order was entered upon stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties in the bankruptcy court, by which the sheriff was directed to go on and sell the property, bringing the proceeds after deducting expenses into said court and depositing the same with its clerk. The sheriff disobeyed the order, deposited the same to the credit of his private account, and used and employed the same in his private business ; he was charged with interest, held, no error.
It was claimed that the State courts had no jurisdiction of the action. This was decided adversely on authority of Kidder, Assignee, v. Horribin (72 N. Y., 600). See also, Gook v. Whipple (55 N. Y., 150); Olailin v. Houseman (3 Otto, 137).
L. W. Thayer for appellants.
Thomas Corlett for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Miller, J.,]
Miller, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Rapallo, J., dissenting; Church, Ch. J., not voting; Andrews, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.